JOSEPHINE RUIZ v. WENDEL OSAKA REALTY CORP. G.R. NO. 189082. Digested

G.R. NO. 189082 - July 11, 2012

JOSEPHINE RUIZ, Petitioner, v. WENDEL OSAKA REALTY CORP., D.M. WENCESLAO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. and DELFIN J. WENCESLAO, JR., Respondents.

SERENO, J.:

Facts:

Petitioner was hired as secretary to respondent (Delfin J. Wenceslao), the president of DMWAI there after appointed as executive assistant to the president of respondent WORC. Sometime in 2002, the BIR informed Delfin of the tax deficiency allegations against his companies. On November 2002, he discovered that “various very important files” of DMWAI were missing. He required the employees to answer a questionnaire but the petitioner failed to comply. Thus, Delfin sent a letter to petitioner informing her that she would be placed under a 30-day preventive suspension and another 15 days with pay. After 45 day period, she reported back to work and was transferred to the Cavite city branch. Subsequently, filed a complaint against his employer. However, petitioner amended her Complaint for illegal suspension to include constructive illegal dismissal.

Issue:

Whether or not  the transfer is valid.

Held:

Yes. An employer has the inherent right to transfer or assign an employee in pursuance of its legitimate business interest, subject only to the condition that the move be not motivated by bad faith. 

As the executive assistant of the president, petitioner undeniably occupied a sensitive position that required her employer's utmost trust and confidence. Respondents had the right to reassign her the moment that confidence was breached. It has been shown that such breach proved that she was no longer fit to discharge her assigned tasks, to wit:

x x x Breach of trust and confidence as a ground for reassignment must be related to the performance of the duties of the employee such as would show him to be thereby unfit to discharge the same task.

Having lost his trust and confidence in petitioner, respondent Delfin had the right to transfer her to ensure that she would no longer have access to the companies confidential files.

Although it is true that petitioner has yet to be proven guilty, respondents had the authority to reassign her, pending investigation. As held in Blue Dairy Corporation and/or Aviguetero and Miguel v. NLRC and Recalde:

Re-assignments made by management pending investigation of irregularities allegedly committed by an employee fall within the ambit of management prerogative. The purpose of reassignments is no different from that of preventive suspension which management could validly impose as a disciplinary measure for the protection of the company's property pending investigation of any alleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed by the employee